]>

me@brandonweeks.com

mallaya.ganesh3@gmail.com

sven.rajala@gmail.com

Security ACME Working Group Internet-Draft This document specifies new identifiers and a challenge for the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) protocol which allows validating the identity of a device using attestation.

Introduction The Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME) standard specifies methods for validating control over identifiers, such as domain names. It is also useful to be able to validate properties of the device requesting the certificate, such as the identity of the device /and whether the certificate key is protected by a secure cryptoprocessor. Many operating systems and device vendors offer functionality enabling a device to generate a cryptographic attestation of their identity, such as:

• Android Key Attestation
• Chrome OS Verified Access
• Trusted Platform Module
• Managed Device Attestation for Apple Devices

Using ACME and device attestation to issue client certificates for enterprise PKI is anticipated to be the most common use case. The following variances to the ACME specification are described in this document:

• Addition of permanent-identifier and hardware-module identifier types.
• Addition of the device-attest-01 challenge type to prove control of the permanent-identifier and hardware-module identifier types.
• The challenge response payload contains a serialized WebAuthn attestation statement format instead of an empty JSON object ({}).
• Accounts and external account binding being used as a mechanism to pre-authenticate requests to an enterprise CA.

This document does not specify the attestation verification procedures. Section 13 of gives some guidance, however verification procedures are complex and may require changes to address future security issues. Efforts are underway within the Remote ATtestation ProcedureS (RATS) working group to define a set of standard formats and protocols for attestation. An explict aim of this document is to support vendor specific formats and protocols that are widley deployed at the time it was authored. In the future, an ACME challenge type based on these standards SHOULD be used instead of device-attest-01.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Permanent Identifier A new identifier type, "permanent-identifier" is introduced to represent the identity of a device assigned by the manufacturer, typically a serial number. The name of this identifier type was chosen to align with , it does not prescribe the lifetime of the identifier, which is at the discretion of the Assigner Authority. The identity along with the assigning organization can be included in the Subject Alternate Name Extension using the PermanentIdentifier form described in . Clients MAY include this identifier in the certificate signing request (CSR). Alternatively if the server wishes to only issue privacy-preserving certificates, it MAY reject CSRs containing a PermanentIdentifier in the subjectAltName extension.

Hardware Module A new identifier type, "hardware-module" is introduced to represent the identity of the secure cryptoprocessor that generated the certificate key. The hardware module identity can be included in the Subject Alternate Name Extension using the HardwareModuleName form described in . The HardwareModuleName is encoded as an otherName with the OID id-on-hardwareModuleName (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.4) and consists of:

• hwType: An OBJECT IDENTIFIER that identifies the type of hardware module
• hwSerialNum: An OCTET STRING containing the hardware module serial number

Clients MAY include this identifier in the certificate signing request (CSR). When included in a CSR, it MUST appear in an extensionRequest attribute requesting a subjectAltName extension. If the server includes HardwareModule in the subjectAltName extension the CA MUST verify that the certificate key was generated on the secure cryptoprocessor with the asserted identity and type. The key MUST NOT be able to be exported from the cryptoprocessor. If the server wishes to issue privacy-preserving certificates, it MAY omit HardwareModule from the subjectAltName extension.

Device Attestation Challenge The client can prove control over a permanent identifier of a device by providing an attestation statement containing the identifier of the device. The device-attest-01 ACME challenge object has the following format:

type (required, string):

The string "device-attest-01".

token (required, string):

A random value that uniquely identifies the challenge. This value MUST have at least 128 bits of entropy. It MUST NOT contain any characters outside the base64url alphabet, including padding characters ("="). See for additional information on randomness requirements.

A client fulfills this challenge by constructing a key authorization () from the "token" value provided in the challenge and the client's account key. The client then generates a WebAuthn attestation object using the key authorization as the challenge. This specification borrows the WebAuthn attestation object representation as described in Section 6.5.4 of for encapsulating attestation formats, but with these modifications:

• The key authorization is used to form attToBeSigned. This replaces the concatenation of authenticatorData and clientDataHash. attToBeSigned is hashed using an algorithm specified by the attestation format.
• The authData field is unused and SHOULD be omitted.

A client responds with the response object containing the WebAuthn attestation object in the "attObj" field to acknowledge that the challenge can be validated by the server. On receiving a response, the server constructs and stores the key authorization from the challenge's "token" value and the current client account key. To validate a device attestation challenge, the server performs the following steps:

1. Perform the verification procedures described in Section 6 of .
2. Verify that key authorization conveyed by attToBeSigned matches the key authorization stored by the server.

Security Considerations See Section 13 of for additional security considerations related to attestation statement formats, including certificate revocation. Key attestation statements may include a variety of information in addition to the public key being attested. While not described in this document, the server MAY use any policy when evaluating this information. This evaluation can result in rejection of a certificate request that features a verifiable key attestation for the public key contained in the request. For example, an attestation statement may indicate use of an unacceptable firmware version.

IANA Considerations

ACME Identifier Types The "ACME Validation Methods" registry is to be updated to include the following entries:

Label	Reference
permanent-identifier	RFC XXXX
hardware-module	RFC XXXX

ACME Validation Method The "ACME Validation Methods" registry is to be updated to include the following entry:

Label	Identifier Type	Reference
device-attest-01	permanent-identifier	RFC XXXX

New Error Types This document adds the following entries to the ACME Error Type registry:

Type	Description	Reference
badAttestationStatement	The attestation statement is unacceptable (e.g. not signed by an attestation authority trusted by the CA)	RFC XXXX

Attestation statement formats describes registration of new attestation statement format types used when authenticating users via . This specification reuses the same format, but, because the context for use is different, a different registry is required. This section defines IANA registries for W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) attestation statement format identifiers and extension identifiers used in the context of a certificate request. This specification establishes two registries:

• the "WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifiers for Certificate Request Protocols" registry
• the "WebAuthn Extension Identifiers for Certificate Request Protocols" registry

Any additional processes established by the expert(s) after the publication of this document will be recorded on the registry web page at the discretion of the expert(s), who may differ from the experts associated with the registry established by .

WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifiers for Certificate Request Protocols WebAuthn attestation statement format identifiers are strings whose semantic, syntactic, and string-matching criteria are specified in the "Attestation Statement Format Identifiers" (https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/REC-webauthn-1-20190304/#sctn-attstn-fmt-ids) section of , along with the concepts of attestation and attestation statement formats. Registered attestation statement format identifiers are those that have been added to the registry by following the procedure in . Each attestation statement format identifier added to this registry MUST be unique amongst the set of registered attestation statement format identifiers. Registered attestation statement format identifiers MUST be a maximum of 32 octets in length and MUST consist only of printable ASCII [RFC20] characters, excluding backslash and double quote, i.e., VCHAR as defined in [RFC5234] but without %x22 and %x5c. Attestation statement format identifiers are case sensitive and may not match other registered identifiers in a case-insensitive manner unless the designated experts determine that there is a compelling reason to allow an exception.

Registering Attestation Statement Format Identifiers WebAuthn attestation statement format identifiers are registered using the Specification Required policy (see Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]). The "WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifiers for Certificate Request Protocols" registry is located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/webauthn_for_certreq. Registration requests can be made by following the instructions located there or by sending an email to the webauthn-for-certreq-reg-review@ietf.org mailing list. Registration requests consist of at least the following information:

• WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier:
  • An identifier meeting the requirements given in .
• Description:
  • A relatively short description of the attestation format.
• Specification Document(s):
  • Reference to the document or documents that specify the attestation statement format.
• Change Controller:
  • For Standards Track RFCs, list "IETF". For others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.
• Notes:
  • [optional]

Registrations MUST reference a freely available, stable specification, e.g., as described in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]. This specification MUST include security and privacy considerations relevant to the attestation statement format. Note that WebAuthn attestation statement format identifiers can be registered by third parties (including the expert(s) themselves), if the expert(s) determines that an unregistered attestation statement format is widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner otherwise. Such registrations still are subject to the requirements defined, including the need to reference a specification.

Registration Request Processing As noted in , WebAuthn attestation statement format identifiers are registered using the Specification Required policy. The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues that cause a registration to be refused, such as an incompletely specified attestation format. When a request is approved, the expert(s) will inform IANA, and the registration will be processed. The IESG is the arbiter of any objection.

Initial Values in the WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifiers for Certificate Request Protocols Registry The initial values for the "WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifiers for Certificate Request Protocols" registry have been populated with the values listed in the "WebAuthn Attestation Statement Format Identifier Registrations" (https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/REC-webauthn-1-20190304/#sctn-att-fmt-reg) section of . Also, the Change Controller entry for each of those registrations is:

• Change Controller:
  • W3C Web Authentication Working Group (public-webauthn@w3.org)

WebAuthn Extension Identifiers for Certificate Request Protocols WebAuthn extension identifiers are strings whose semantic, syntactic, and string-matching criteria are specified in the "Extension Identifiers" (https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/REC-webauthn-1-20190304/#sctn-extension-id) section of . Registered extension identifiers are those that have been added to the registry by following the procedure in . Each extension identifier added to this registry MUST be unique amongst the set of registered extension identifiers. Registered extension identifiers MUST be a maximum of 32 octets in length and MUST consist only of printable ASCII characters, excluding backslash and double quote, i.e., VCHAR as defined in [RFC5234] but without %x22 and %x5c. Extension identifiers are case sensitive and may not match other registered identifiers in a case-insensitive manner unless the designated experts determine that there is a compelling reason to allow an exception.

Registering Extension Identifiers WebAuthn extension identifiers are registered using the Specification Required policy (see Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]). The "WebAuthn Extension Identifiers" registry is located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/webauthn. Registration requests can be made by following the instructions located there or by sending an email to the webauthn-for-certreq-reg-review@ietf.org mailing list. Registration requests consist of at least the following information:

• WebAuthn Extension Identifier:
  • An identifier meeting the requirements given in .
• Description:
  • A relatively short description of the extension.
• Specification Document(s):
  • Reference to the document or documents that specify the extension.
• Change Controller:
  • For Standards Track RFCs, list "IETF". For others, give the name of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address, email address, home page URI) may also be included.
• Notes:
  • [optional]

Registrations MUST reference a freely available, stable specification, e.g., as described in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]. This specification MUST include security and privacy considerations relevant to the extension. Note that WebAuthn extensions can be registered by third parties (including the expert(s) themselves), if the expert(s) determines that an unregistered extension is widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner otherwise. Such registrations still are subject to the requirements defined, including the need to reference a specification.

Registration Request Processing As noted in , WebAuthn extension identifiers are registered using the Specification Required policy. The expert(s) will clearly identify any issues that cause a registration to be refused, such as an incompletely specified extension. When a request is approved, the expert(s) will inform IANA, and the registration will be processed. The IESG is the arbiter of any objection.

Initial Values in the WebAuthn Extension Identifiers Registry The initial values for the "WebAuthn Extension Identifiers" registry have been populated with the values listed in the "WebAuthn Extension Identifier Registrations" https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/REC-webauthn-1-20190304/#sctn-extensions-reg section of . Also, the Change Controller entry for each of those registrations is:

• Change Controller:
  • W3C Web Authentication Working Group (public-webauthn@w3.org)

Normative References This document describes the use of the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) to protect firmware packages, which provide object code for one or more hardware module components. CMS is specified in RFC 3852. A digital signature is used to protect the firmware package from undetected modification and to provide data origin authentication. Encryption is optionally used to protect the firmware package from disclosure, and compression is optionally used to reduce the size of the protected firmware package. A firmware package loading receipt can optionally be generated to acknowledge the successful loading of a firmware package. Similarly, a firmware package load error report can optionally be generated to convey the failure to load a firmware package. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document defines a new form of name, called permanent identifier, that may be included in the subjectAltName extension of a public key certificate issued to an entity. The permanent identifier is an optional feature that may be used by a CA to indicate that two or more certificates relate to the same entity, even if they contain different subject name (DNs) or different names in the subjectAltName extension, or if the name or the affiliation of that entity stored in the subject or another name form in the subjectAltName extension has changed. The subject name, carried in the subject field, is only unique for each subject entity certified by the one CA as defined by the issuer name field. However, the new name form can carry a name that is unique for each subject entity certified by a CA. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) certificates are used for a number of purposes, the most significant of which is the authentication of domain names. Thus, certification authorities (CAs) in the Web PKI are trusted to verify that an applicant for a certificate legitimately represents the domain name(s) in the certificate. As of this writing, this verification is done through a collection of ad hoc mechanisms. This document describes a protocol that a CA and an applicant can use to automate the process of verification and certificate issuance. The protocol also provides facilities for other certificate management functions, such as certificate revocation. This specification defines IANA registries for W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) attestation statement format identifiers and extension identifiers. Google Mozilla Microsoft Microsoft Yubico In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. This memo represents a republication of PKCS #9 v2.0 from RSA Laboratories' Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) series, and change control is retained within the PKCS process. The body of this document, except for the security considerations section, is taken directly from that specification. This memo provides information for the Internet community. Security systems are built on strong cryptographic algorithms that foil pattern analysis attempts. However, the security of these systems is dependent on generating secret quantities for passwords, cryptographic keys, and similar quantities. The use of pseudo-random processes to generate secret quantities can result in pseudo-security. A sophisticated attacker may find it easier to reproduce the environment that produced the secret quantities and to search the resulting small set of possibilities than to locate the quantities in the whole of the potential number space. Choosing random quantities to foil a resourceful and motivated adversary is surprisingly difficult. This document points out many pitfalls in using poor entropy sources or traditional pseudo-random number generation techniques for generating such quantities. It recommends the use of truly random hardware techniques and shows that the existing hardware on many systems can be used for this purpose. It provides suggestions to ameliorate the problem when a hardware solution is not available, and it gives examples of how large such quantities need to be for some applications. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

Enterprise PKI ACME was originally envisioned for issuing certificates in the Web PKI, however this extension will primarily be useful in enterprise PKI. The subsection below covers some operational considerations for an ACME-based enterprise CA.

External Account Binding An enterprise CA likely only wants to receive requests from authorized devices. It is RECOMMENDED that the server require a value for the "externalAccountBinding" field to be present in "newAccount" requests. If an enterprise CA desires to limit the number of certificates that can be requested with a given account, including limiting an account to a single certificate. After the desired number of certificates have been issued to an account, the server MAY revoke the account as described in Section 7.1.2 of .

Acknowledgments TODO acknowledge.